Energy Citations Database

Bibliographic Citation

 
Document
For copies of Journal Articles, please contact the Publisher or your local public or university library and refer to the information in the Resource Relation field.
For copies of other documents, please see the Availability, Publisher, Research Organization, Resource Relation and/or Author (affiliation information) fields and/or Document Availability.
Title Cost-effective mechanical vapor recompression
Creator/Author Leatherman, H.
Publication Date1983 Jan 01
OSTI IdentifierOSTI ID: 6055794
Other Number(s)CODEN: CEPRA
Resource TypeJournal Article
Resource RelationChem. Eng. Prog. ; Vol/Issue: 79:1
Research OrgKerr-McGee Nuclear Corp., Gore, OK 74435
Subject420200 -- Engineering-- Facilities, Equipment, & Techniques; ;EVAPORATORS-- COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;URANYL NITRATES-- EVAPORATORS; CAPITALIZED COST;ENERGY CONSUMPTION;OPERATION
Related SubjectACTINIDE COMPOUNDS;COST;NITRATES;NITROGEN COMPOUNDS;OXYGEN COMPOUNDS;URANIUM COMPOUNDS;URANYL COMPOUNDS
Description/Abstract Explains how increasing natural gas costs provided the incentive to install a mechanical vapor recompression unit that accomodates variations in production rates and provides for plant expansion.^The evaporator can concentrate uranyl nitrate solution with much more energy efficiency.^Uranyl nitrate solution is purified in the solvent extraction portion of the process, concentrated by evaporation, and then introduced into boildown, where all remaining free water is removed.^Benefits of a vapor recompression evaporation system over a single-effect evaporator include not only energy cost savings, but a reduction of about 50% on the plant steam demand and 35% on the heat and pumping load of the plant cooling tower.^Material to be evaporated must be thoroughly evaluated to determine that the physical properties are within the economic limits of a vapor recompression system.^Available energy sources and other plant needs must also be considered.^Concludes that comparison of the installed and operating costs reveals that the multi-effect system cannot compete economically with mechanical vapor recompression, unless the former can also meet unique thermal needs of the plant other than evaporation.
Country of PublicationUnited States
LanguageEnglish
FormatPages: 40-42
System Entry Date2001 May 13

Top